### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A ugus t 3, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15125 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 6 0 0 1 4 - C R - KA M U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s W I L L I E J A M E S C O L L I N S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 3, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , C A R N E S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: W i l l i e J a m e s C ol l i ns pl e a de d gui l ty t o one c ountof c ons pi r a c y t o de f

r a ud2

the U ni t ed S t at es , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 86 , and o ne coun tof m aki ng a f al se , f i c t i t i o u s , o rf

r a u d u l e n tc l a i m a g a i n s tth e U n i t e d St a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 87 . H e c hal l enges hi s 37-m on th sent ence on the grou nd s thatthe di stri ctcourt vi ol a t e d U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . ___, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) , by e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on f a c t s tha tw e r e ne i the rpr ove n t o a j ur y nor adm i t t ed by hi m . H e a l so cont ends t hatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i t t ed a B oo ker st atut ory e rr or by se nt enci ng hi m un der a m andat ory gui del i nes r egi m e. T he go vernm entconcedes thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i t t ed a B oo ker s ta tu to r y e r r o r . B e c a u s e C o llin s g a v e a tim e ly o b je c tio n b e f

o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e vi e w the e r r ort o de t e r m i ne w he the ri tw a s ha r m l e s s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a th e n ia , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “A n o n - c o n s titu tio n a l e r r o ris ha r m l e s s i f

, vi e w i ng the pr oc e e di ngs i n the i re nt i r e ty , a c our tde t e r m i ne s tha tthe e r r o rd id n o t a f

f e c t th e s e n te n c e , o rh a d b u t v e r y s lig h t e f f e c t. I f o n e c a n s a y w ith f a i ra s s ur a nc e tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s nots ubs t a nt i a l l y s w a y e d by the e r r or , the s e nt e nc e i s due t o be a f

f i r m e d e ve n though the r e w a s e r r or . ” I d. ( m a r ks a nd quot a t i ons om i t t e d) . T he gove r nm e ntha s notm e ti t s bur de n unde rthi s s t a nda r d. T he on l y e vi dence the go vernm entpo i nt s t o i n argui ng thatthe B oo ker s t a tut or y e r r orw a s ha r m l e s s i s the f a c ttha tC ol l i ns w a s s e nt e nc e d t o the t op of the 30 t o 37 m onth s e nt e nc i ng- r a nge pr oduc e d by the gui de l i ne s . T ha te vi de nc e a l oneBe causewe f ind resente ncingnece ssary due to the B ooker statutory error, weneed not 1 addre ss Coll ins’ arguments reg ardingany alleg ed B ooker c onstitut ional error. 3 is n o t e n o u g h to p r o v id e a “f a ira s s u r a n c e th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly s w a y e d by the e r r or , ” i d. ( m a r ks a nd quot a t i ons om i t t e d) . C f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G al l egos-A gu er o, 40 9 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 77 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng the B oo ker s t a tut or y e r r orha r m l e s s i n tha tc a s e w he r e the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d the de f e nda ntt o the t op of

the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge a nd e xpl i c i t l y “ c ons i de r e d s e nt e nc i ng [ the de f e nda nt ] t o 20 y e a r s , the m a xi m um a l l ow a bl e unde rthe s t a tut e of conv i ct i on ”) . A s a re sul t , the go vernm enthas f ai l ed t o est abl i sh thatthe B oo ker st atu t o ry erro r w as h arm l ess. 1 C ol l i ns ’ s e nt e nc e d i s V A C A T E D a nd the c a s e i s R E M A N D E D f or r e s e nt e nc i ng.